English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Background  The atherosclerosis cardiovascular disease ( ASCVD ) Pooled Cohort risk equations have shown different calibration across  US  populations with varied levels of social deprivation.    Methods and Results  We analyzed the calibration and discrimination of the Pooled Cohort risk equations by social deprivation status among 9066  REGARDS  (REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke) study participants not taking statins for whom  ASCVD  risk may lead to statin initiation. Patients were aged 45 to 79 years, had no  ASCVD  or diabetes mellitus, and had a low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol level 70 to 189 mg/dL. Social deprivation was defined using 3 indicators: annual household income <$25 000, less than a high school education, and living without a partner. At baseline in 2003–2007, 54.6%, 27.4%, and 18.0% of participants had 0, 1, and 2 or 3 indicators showing deprivation, respectively. From baseline through December 2012, 457 participants developed  ASCVD  (nonfatal/fatal stroke, myocardial infarction, or coronary heart disease death). Predicted and observed  ASCVD  incidence per 1000 person‐years were 8.02 and 6.23 (95%  CI , 5.31–7.31), respectively, among participants with 0 indicators of deprivation (Hosmer–Lemeshow  P =0.01); 8.05 and 6.61 (95%  CI , 5.29–8.24), respectively, with 1 indicator ( P =0.09); and 9.83 and 11.40 (95%  CI , 9.23–14.05), respectively, with 2 or 3 indicators ( P =0.12). The C‐index (95%  CI ) was 0.72 (0.69–0.75), 0.73 (0.69–0.78), and 0.70 (0.65–0.75) among participants with 0, 1, and 2 or 3 indicators of deprivation, respectively. The net reclassification improvement after adding deprivation data to the Pooled Cohort risk equations was modest (0.12; 95%  CI , 0.03–0.21).    Conclusions  The Pooled Cohort risk equations have good calibration among individuals with social deprivation but overestimate  ASCVD  risk among those with less social deprivation.

Performance of the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Pooled Cohort Risk Equations by Social Deprivation Status